Our lunch with Stéphane, part 2 - social issues

Abdul-Rahim said...
F**k the tax cuts, let's tackle some of these social issues he talks to care about!

My response to Abdul-Rahim's comment was so long, I decided to make it a separate post.

Dion did talk quite a bit about tackling social programs, and I may not have addressed that very well in my summary. Thanks for giving me this opportunity to fix that, Abdul-Rahim.

Dion talked about addressing child poverty, early childhood education, seniors' poverty, the working poor, accessibility of postsecondary education. (Sorry I don't have all the details, but there'll be more info in the full text of the speech / discours.)

It was instructive that, even though this was a business crowd, the biggest round of applause came when he said, "A plan to fight poverty is urgent. It will be at the heart of a Liberal agenda."

In response to a question from the floor, Dion talked about reinstating the Kelowna Accord which the Harper govt trashed after years of ultimately successful negotiations between the federal (Liberal) govt, the provinces, the territories, First Nations, Métis and Inuit representatives.

He wants to top up Kelowna with "education, education, education" - enabling aboriginal youth to access postsecondary education (universities or trade colleges) immediately after graduating from high school. He said this is the best way to help them end the cycle of poverty.

A lot of the point of the tax cuts he's advocating is that they would help the lowest income people directly (the Tories actually raised the income tax rate for the lowest income group). And corporate tax cuts would be designed to increase job opportunities and innovation.

I expect that the emphasis was on the economy partly because of today's fall economic forecast coming from the govt. He has done some major speeches on social justice - here's one http://www.liberal.ca/story_12308_e.aspx (EN) and http://www.liberal.ca/story_12308_f.aspx (FR).

Also on the liberal.ca video page http://www.liberal.ca/video_e.aspx, scroll down to Halifax Town Hall (Aug 21), there are videos on a few related topics. I know he's said on other occasions that he would use the $5.5 billion that Harper is wasting on a GST cut to address child poverty instead - see this video http://www.liberal.ca/players/player_e.aspx?id=101 from March 2, 2007.

I wasn't able to get down all his responses to questions from the public and the media (I was taking pictures too), so I may still be missing some stuff. But the overall impression was of a very good integration of economic and social policy (and environmental policy of course) - the "liberal virtuous circle."

The next stop on his London tour was UWO where he was touring the biotron which "will allow scientists to study the effects of climate change and pollution on core samples of actual soil taken from various environments."

More on social issues . . . http://femmeverte.blogspot.com/2007/10/our-lunch-with-stphane-part-2-social.html

Our lunch with Stéphane

A Golden Opportunity: Sound tax cuts for Canadians
Une occasion en or : de vraies réductions d’impôts pour les Canadiens

So, your intrepid bloggers learned last night that Stéphane Dion was going to be speaking at the Canadian Club of London today, Monday, October 29, 2007. Nothing if not dedicated to our liblogging duty, we of course attended.

We weren't the only ones. This was the largest crowd ever for a Canadian Club of London (CCL) event - clearly Dion is popular in the London area. Liberal MPs and candidates from across southwestern Ontario were also there.

Dion was introduced by the CCL president, Doug Ferguson. Yes, the same Doug Ferguson who is National Vice-President, English of the LPC.

In his intro, Ferguson mentioned Dion's "courage under fire" - were truer words ever spoken? If I was writing vol. 2 of Dion's bio, I think that would be a perfect title.

For an audience of business people, today's speech was a "call for economic responsibility; a forward-looking vision for Canada."

The entire speech is available online here: http://www.liberal.ca/story_13263_e.aspx (EN) and here http://www.liberal.ca/story_13263_f.aspx (FR) so I won't go into detail about the contents. (Especially as this blogger is not an economics expert.)

Here are some highlights (paraphrased from my scribbled notes)...

[About the Liberal economic record:] When the Liberals took power, the Wall Street Journal had made Canada an honourary member of the Third World. Thirteen years of Liberal government has made us the envy of the First World.

The challenges we face are enormous. We need to make the right choices right now.

After Toronto, London has the highest number of smog days.... Liberals will have a strong platform for clean air, clean water, a credible plan for climate change and a healthy natural environment.

We need a fairer Canada. More than a half million senior citizens live in poverty... More than a million Canadian children live in poverty. Most poor people work. A job should be a path to dignity and self-sufficiency.

A plan to fight poverty is urgent. It will be at the heart of a Liberal agenda. [BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE HERE]

Conservative interest deductibility proposal will cost Canadian companies billions of dollars and enrich foreign governments.

We need to improve access to post-secondary institutions such as the University of Western Ontario and Fanshawe College. [YAY FANSHAWE!! - ed.] I don't want to live in a country where only the rich have access to post-secondary education.

He made the point, which he has made before, that another 1% cut of the GST, would be a serious mistake:

There's only one person who has studied economics who wants to cut the GST. Unfortunately that person is the current Prime Minister.

Cutting income taxes gives people the choice to save or spend their savings. When the GST is cut you have to spend to benefit. Canada needs people to save more, which leads to investment, which leads to innovation, job creation etc.

He called the proposed GST cut an "irresponsible use of the Canadian budget. It will cost $6 billion a year or a massive $30 billion over 5 years. A budgetary decision of that magnitude should focus on creating jobs and improving Canadians’ standard of living."

He talked about the Liberal record of "significantly reducing taxes across the board. We significantly lowered the cost of doing business in Canada. We reduced corporate income tax rates from 28 per cent, to a planned 19 per cent by 2010." He committed to further corporate tax and personal income tax reductions.

We must take advantage of this golden opportunity to offer broad-based income tax relief to Canadians, while investing in the urgent priorities of Canadians.

In response to a question of Doug Reycraft, Mayor of Southwest Middlesex [?] and on the exec of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), Dion committed to working with municipalities to strengthen their capacity to manage their infrastructure needs. He said "if there is a fiscal imbalance it's for the third level of government - municipalities. I will be an excellent partner for municipalities." He noted that any tax cuts would be responsible and would not destroy government's capacity to do essential things like infrastructure renewal. (Note - he got lots of standing O's at his speech to the FCM in Calgary a few months ago; he obviously has a good record with them from when he was intergov affairs and environment minister.)

After the speech and questions he did a scrum with local media. (Click here for the Facebook photo album.) One of the questions of course was about the Blair Wilson thing. Asked "Do you still support Wilson?" Dion responded (paraphrase from memory): "I support his actions and call on the Conservative government to do the same thing." Dion noted that Wilson contacted Elections Canada himself and asked them to investigate as soon he learned about allegations of Elections Act violations by his campaign. He resigned from his revenue critic position and from the Liberal caucus immediately and is calling on Elections Canada for a speedy investigation and resolution to the matter.

Contrast that with the Conservatives who are not cooperating with Elections Canada about violations that Elections Canada has reported, and have not stepped down from their positions; in fact several are cabinet ministers.

Here's what Deb Prothero had to say on the Unity Facebook group:

Stephane Dion addressed the largest crowd ever in the 102 year history of the Canadian Council of London at noon today. He was focussed and deliberate in his presentation on how to create a Greener, Fairer & Richer Canada. The crowd was receptive and to demonstrate his capacity for leadership, Dion took several questions, giving unrehearsed answers that were short, sweet and hit the nail on the head and sometimes a delightful bit of humour. Results: standing ovation from the business community!

My impression - Stephane Dion is the only leader with the courage to face the Canadian people's questions and the media's questions in a scrum afterward. Only a leader who can do this is capable of the depth of principled thought and emotional maturity to take this nation into the future. I want my Canada back and I want Dion leading it. And his integrity under fire and his sense of humour are so refreshing!

For more on Dion's London appearance, see also "Our lunch with Stéphane, part 2 - social issues":
http://femmeverte.blogspot.com/2007/10/our-lunch-with-stphane-part-2-social.html

After the Cdn Club event, Dion toured UWO's Biotron Institute for Experimental Climate Change Research.

Liberals have to fight back positively

Kinder, gentler Dion preferable to nasty Harper
Winnipeg Free Press, Wed Oct 24 2007
View from the West and Beyond - Frances Russell

TEN months ago, the Conservatives brought a quick end to newly elected Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's political honeymoon with a brutal attack ad culminating in a stentorian voice proclaiming "Stéphane Dion is not a leader."

Last Saturday at a town hall meeting in Winnipeg, Dion used the ad to showcase himself as a person and a politician who couldn't be more different from Prime Minister Stephen Harper. An audience member urged Dion to go as negative and hard against Harper as Harper has against him.

"I try to imagine myself as a very negative person and to have attack ads like 'Stephen Harper is not a leader'" (and here he mimicked the announcer's doomsday tone, to applause and laughter.) "It's not me.

"I don't want ads that are personal," Dion continued. "Instead, I want ads where you contrast what they are doing and what we would do -- on the environment, on women's rights, on fighting poverty... I am confident in the big heart, the good sense and the judgment of the Canadian people."

Liberals have to fight back positively, the Liberal leader continued. "I don't mind to mention the Conservative record and where I think Mr. Harper is making mistakes. But it will not be his personal character that I will attack. It is what he's doing to this country."

He returned to the theme when asked about proportional representation. He prefers the preferential ballot, which allows voters to rank parties in descending order of choice.

"I like this system, because the information you receive from every voter is richer. It's not just your first choice, it's all choices," Dion said. "The other thing that is good is that there is an obligation to be more civilized in the debate."

Parties will be more respectful of one another because they will be wooing each others' partisans for their second or third choices. "If I insult them and I come out with attack ads, they will not want to vote for me. It will be good for Canada because there will be a more civilized debate."

Dion's plea for civility folded in neatly with his views on the close links between economic growth, social justice and environmental sustainability -- what he called the Liberals' "virtuous circle."

"The Conservatives, they have difficulty in seeing social programs otherwise than as a burden on the economy. We Liberals, we think that social programs that are well-designed will help people be better trained, better-educated, healthier, more confident in life and because of that, they will be better equipped to be competitive in the market... And then the market economy will be stronger and provide more room for social programs."

Dion's positive and inclusive message in Winnipeg stands in stark contrast to the nasty confrontational climate in Ottawa.

Last week, the Liberal leader was savaged in the right-wing media for dodging an election over the throne speech, although Harper and NDP Leader Jack Layton both also ducked non-confidence motions during the short-lived Paul Martin minority. Dion Needs A New Dog, screamed one headline. Master of Disaster, blared another.

Also last week, Canadians learned -- and some voters reacted angrily -- to news that Harper's office had compiled a mailing list of Jewish Canadians and had issued an "outreach" strategy to Conservative candidates on how to target and recruit minority Canadians into the Conservative party that uses the word "ethnic" no less than 85 times. On Monday, the Conservative party followed Harper's earlier decision to turf Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey out of caucus for refusing to toe the line on off-shore resources by firing his entire Conservative riding association for daring to re-nominate him.

These actions recall and amplify Harper's recent "fish or cut bait" ultimatum to opposition parties and last spring's leaked 200-page manual showing Conservative MPs how to manipulate parliamentary committees even though the Conservatives lack a majority on them as they do in the Commons itself.

Among other things, Conservative committee chairs were told how to select party-friendly witnesses, how to obstruct debate and, if all else fails, to simply storm out, shutting committees down. Those MPs who tried to proceed through all-party consensus were severely reprimanded by party whip Jay Hill.

Finally, there's the new Tom Flanagan book proving that all the dark and duplicitous arts of the American Republican political culture have moved north. In Harper's Team, Flanagan, Harper's close friend, political strategist and former campaign
manager, quotes himself in one memorable passage on how to fund raise:

"...(M)ake people angry and afraid and set up an opponent for them to give against."

What happened to Harper's promises of grassroots democracy, respect for voters and for Parliament and ironclad guarantees of free votes on just about everything? Of course, Dion could disappoint just like Harper.

But as it stands now, the next election will offer one of the starkest choices in Canadian history: between openness and inclusion on the one hand and control and manipulation on the other. Source: http://winnipegfreepress.com/subscriber/westview/story/4063366p-4666792c.html

Quotes from the Gas Station Theatre talk
(Winnipeg, Oct. 20, 2007)

Q: What will Liberals do with the Canadian Wheat Board?
A: Dion said Canada needs to protect the wheat board and let members of the board decide their future in a fair process.

Q: How will he address child poverty?
A: Dion vowed to make child care and early childhood development programs a priority, along with investing in families. "The Liberal agenda will have the biggest fight on poverty this country ever had. We need to give every child a chance."

Q: What is his response to Tory attack ads?
A: Dion said he's a positive person and doesn't want to make personal attacks against Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
"We need to fight back, but we'd like to fight back positively."

Q: Does he support making Pierre Trudeau Day a national holiday?
A: "National day, certainly; national holiday, we need to talk."

Q: How will he improve the lives of Canada's First Nations?
A: "Education, education, education."

Source: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/story/4061782p-4665540c.html

After a brief speech, Dion spent 90 minutes fielding questions from audience members, who asked about everything from the cleanup of Lake Winnipeg to gun control. Dion criticized the Harper government for not taking a tougher stance on greenhouse gas emissions and investing just $7 million on the cleanup of Lake Winnipeg.

"This is wrong -- $7 million is a lot in your pocket but for a lake like this one it's nothing," he said. "We need to have a major investment in Lake Winnipeg based on science and good choices."

He also guaranteed Parliament would look a lot different with the Liberals in power by promising that one-third of candidates in the next election would be women.
Dion also criticized Harper's cosy relationship with U.S. politicians. He said Canada needs to work to develop multilateral relationships with countries around the world, but also has to be clear about its role abroad.

"For us, the U.S. is our ally and our friend, it's the biggest trade partnership in the world," he said. "But at the same time they are them and we are us and this is a distinction that is not made by Mr. Harper."
Dion travels to Saskatoon today. (Source: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscriber/local/story/4061864p-4665314c.html)

Canadians give the green light to real action on climate change: Poll

Sixty-eight percent of Canadians report that they have personally experienced climate change, and they expect their federal government to get with the program and do something about it.

A poll published in late September says "Canadians Tell Harper: Stand with EU, Not Bush on Climate Change."

The Harris/Decima poll, conducted by Allan Gregg for ClimateforChange.ca, found that "fully 61% of Canadians believe that Canada should be aligned on the international stage with European countries and other nations committed to establishing further Kyoto-like targets. Only 25% of those surveyed believed that Canada should continue the Harper policy of joining nations like the United States and Australia who oppose setting future Kyoto-like targets.“

“Canadians want our Prime Minister to quit running with the wrong crowd when it comes to international efforts to combat climate change,” said John Bennett, Executive Director, ClimateforChange.ca.

Furthermore, 81% of respondents said that "Difficulty in achieving targets is no reason not to try" (p. 22).

And 67% of respondents want any shortfall from the first Kyoto period (2008-2012) added to our post-2012 targets.

Findings demonstrate a widespread dissatisfaction with the Harper Conservatives’ climate change agenda despite a year of persistent effort by the government to rebrand itself on the issue and to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The Canadian public continues to hold a strong belief that Canada should remain part of the Kyoto Protocol. Recognizes that the government has failed to regulate industry and is abandoning Kyoto.

Significantly, 68% of respondents feel that the "motivation of federal Conservative government for environmental changes and announcements" is "Trying to win votes."

And "87% of Canadians rank ‘protecting the environment’ as either an important or very important issue when it comes to how they intend to cast their vote in the next federal election."

Poll highlights:

• p. 3 - The environment is "the most important issue facing Canada today" by a huge margin.
• p. 5 - 87% rate "Protecting the environment" as very important/important in voting decision (tied for first place with improving healthcare)
• p. 8, 11 - 68% report that they have personally experienced climate change and that the effects of climate change are occurring now.
• p. 9 - 50% say that climate change is caused primarily by human and industrial activity; another 37% say human and industrial activity plus natural forces. Only 9% say primarily natural forces.
  
• p. 13 - 76% think the oil & gas industry should take responsibility for reducing carbon emissions; 70%/federal government; 70% big business
  
• p. 19 - Perceived motivation of federal Conservative government for environmental changes and announcements - 68% say "Trying to win votes"
• p. 21 - 58% say 2020 is too late to achieve reduction targets
  
• p. 22 - 81% say "Difficulty in achieving targets is no reason not to try" and 90% say"even if we can't meet targets, we should not be giving up" (p.27)
  
• p. 23 - 67% say "Any previous shortfall [reaching Kyoto targets] should be added to our post 2012 commitments"
• p. 24 - 61% say "Canada should be siding with European countries who want to further Kyoto-like targets"
• p. 25 - 92% say "we owe it to future generations to tackle climate crisis now"
  
• p. 25 - 89% say "morally wrong for Canada not to show leadership and reduce emissions"
• p. 25 - 88% say "the Canada I would like is an international leader not a big polluter"
  

Source: http://climateforchange.ca/?q=MR-09-24-2007

(Poll conducted August 15-21, 2007. Sample size=1,000. Margin of error = +/-3.2%)

The Hypocritical Party of Canada and the Kyoto Protocol

Why doesn't the CPC just change its name to the Hypocritical Party of Canada (HPC)? We could have Hyppos to go with the Rhinos.

The Conservatives have no intention of even trying to meet Kyoto targets but they don't have the guts to actually withdraw from the agreement.

Canada won't withdraw from Kyoto: Baird

MURRAY BREWSTER, The Canadian Press, October 19, 2007 at 3:18 PM EDT

Ottawa — Environment Minister John Baird says Canada will not formally withdraw from the Kyoto protocol, even though the Conservative government's latest throne speech declared the objectives in the global climate change treaty are unattainable.

Environmental groups called the statement “patently dishonest,” saying if the Tories had the strength of their convictions, they would explicitly abandon the treaty as they promised in the 2004 election campaign and suffer the political consequences.

“We've been very clear,” Mr. Baird told a infrastructure news conference in suburban Orleans, Ont. “We have no intention of withdrawing from the UN framework; the Kyoto protocol.”

Mr. Baird said the Tories intend to forge ahead with their own strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions domestically, while working with other countries on realistic, long-term solutions.

But John Bennett of ClimateforChange.ca, says it's hypocritical for the Conservatives to continue to support the protocol in name-only.

They've figured out that the Canadian public supports Kyoto and aren't willing to pay the political price of uttering the words “withdrawal,” he said.

One of the pillars of this week's throne speech was a statement that targets set out in the environmental international framework are unachievable.

“At the end of 2005, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions were 33 per cent above the Kyoto commitment,” said the speech delivered by the governor general Tuesday night. “It is now widely understood that, because of inaction on greenhouse gases over the last decade, Canada's emissions cannot be brought to the level required under the Kyoto Protocol within the compliance period, which begins on Jan. 1, 2008, just 77 days from now.”

In the days leading up to the speech, Conservative insiders signalled the Kyoto reference was a trap meant to ensnare Liberal Leader Stephane Dion on one of his most cherished policy points.

“What we have here is the unique situation of a government playing with an environmental issue solely in political terms,” said Mr. Bennett. “They really in their hearts don't believe climate change is a problem, have no desire to put any effort whatsoever into reducing emissions until they discovered the public wouldn't accept that.”

Mr. Baird disputed that in the House of Commons this week, making it clear that he believes climate change is a man-made issue that poses a real threat.

A new public opinion survey suggests Canadians are unhappy with the environmental elements of the throne speech.

But Mr. Baird dismissed the survey in the Toronto Star, saying the throne speech is a broad statement of principles.

“I think Canadians are understandably skeptical about when politicians make commitments on our environment because they've seen a lot of talk and little action from the previous government,” he said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged to kill the Kyoto Protocol he was in opposition, describing it as nothing more than scheme to transfer wealth to developing nations. Following the January 2006 the Tories cancelled billions of dollars worth of federal climate change initiatives, but brought them back a year later with new names.

Mr. Baird rattled off the list of established Conservative policies, including the throne speech reference to the plan to slash emissions 20 per cent by the year 2020 and 70 per cent by 2050.

“Some people want to debate Ad nauseam,” he said. “There is not a consensus among political parties. There's not a consensus among premiers. There's not a consensus among environmentalists and the business community. What Canadians want to see is the federal government take action and that is what we are doing.”

The Conservatives have established a $1.5-billion fund to help provinces deal with climate change and air pollution. In addition, consumers who purchase fuel efficient vehicles are entitled to a rebate — a program announced in last spring's but just began issuing cheques a few weeks ago. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071019.wkyoto_baird1019/BNStory/National/home)

Action from Liberals, hypocrisy from Harper

The Liberals have been trying for over a year to get several pieces of crime legislation passed quickly. The Conservative government has been doing everything in its power to block its own legislation so they can turn around and say it's the fault of the Liberals. This strategy is so ludicrous that the Conservatives themselves laugh at it.

Official Opposition Moves to Prevent Government from Stalling Crime Legislation

October 21, 2007

OTTAWA – While the Conservative government is focused exclusively on exploiting criminal justice issues for partisan gain, the Liberal Party is again renewing its efforts to actually pass legislation that would protect Canadian communities as quickly as possible, said Liberal Justice Critic Marlene Jennings today.

“On Thursday, the government proposed legislation to supposedly tackle violent crime, but, in effect, their new bill will actually delay implementation of these measures, since most of what is included in their bill has already passed through the House of Commons thanks to the efforts of the Official Opposition,” said Ms. Jennings.

To prevent another Conservative procedural roadblock, the Official Opposition will propose that all parties agree that the bill be deemed adopted at second reading so it can move immediately to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice. This is yet another in a long string of offers that the Liberal Party has made to advance the Conservative government’s justice legislation.

The new Tackling Violent Crime Bill (Bill C-2) is simply an amalgamation of five pieces of justice legislation that were introduced by the Conservatives in the last session. The five bills dealt with mandatory minimum sentences (C-10), the age of consent (C-22), the dangerous offender regime (C-27), impaired driving (C-32) and bail reform (C-35). All five of those bills have already passed second reading in the House of Commons.

“By re-introducing these rolled together as a new bill, they’re discarding the work already done, slowing down the process, and, worst of all, misleading Canadians who clearly want to see this legislation passed,” said Ms. Jennings.

“This isn’t the first time we’ve attempted to move on this file, contrary to the statements by the Minister of Justice. Our first offer was made over a year ago. Back in March, we proposed one of our own Opposition Days to pass the government’s bills, but were blocked by procedural tricks by this government,” said Ms. Jennings.

“This is further proof while the government makes threats, we make progress.”

(http://www.liberal.ca/story_13224_e.aspx)

Stephen Harper's Hypocritical "Election Deception"

If "this government is clean," why don't they come clean on election financing?

"Media reports over the last month revealed that Federal Court documents detail that the Conservatives allegedly funnelled over $1 million in national advertising expenditures through at least 66 of their candidates campaigns, which were also signed off by their official agents.

The implications of this scam are two-fold. If properly accounted for as part of the Conservative Party's national campaign, then the party that forms the current government exceeded the $18 million national spending limit and broke the law in getting itself elected. And, if that's not enough, we then have the spectacle of scores of Conservative candidates (click for list of names) having claimed reimbursement of 60 per cent of the money at issue, money that Elections Canada ruled them ineligible to receive. If these allegations are proven, this would amount to election fraud." http://www.liberal.ca/story_13156_e.aspx

Stephen Harper’s Election Deception

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are currently being investigated by Elections Canada for allegedly orchestrating an elaborate money-laundering scheme that allowed them to spend more on national advertising than the law permits during the last election while attempting to get rebates for monies the national party hid by funnelling through Conservative candidate campaigns.

If these allegations are proven true, they would amount to fraud and a gross breach of the public trust.

This shocking scheme appears to have been designed and administered by senior Conservative operatives to secretly exceed the legal spending limit by $1.3 million and gain an additional $780,000 in taxpayer-funded rebates to their Conservative candidates for expenses those campaigns did not incur and for advertising that was not at all local in nature or scope.

Worse still, this scheme appears to implicate the campaigns of 17 sitting Conservative MPs, including members of Stephen Harper’s Cabinet.

Liberals are demanding accountability and honesty from Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party.

Specifically, Liberals are demanding that Stephen Harper’s Conservatives:

• Provide a full list of candidates who participated in the scheme;
• Commit to refrain from using a similar scheme in the next federal election;
• Repay all rebate monies already received by the scheme; and,
• Drop their court case against Elections Canada, and instead, cooperate fully with its ongoing investigation into the Conservative Party.

These allegations should not be taken lightly: the Canada Elections Act sets out very serious penalties for any individual or political party found guilty of the allegations currently faced by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. Exceeding election spending limits, colluding to exceed election spending limits, and knowingly filing fraudulent election expense claims all bring with them hefty fines and even jail time.

That’s why Liberals think it is time Stephen Harper’s Conservatives stop playing politics with this issue and start telling the truth.

Nothing is more important for the continued integrity of our elections than ensuring that all political parties contest them fairly and play by the rules. Canadians demand no less. (http://www.liberal.ca/issue_election_e.aspx)

Harper Must Come Clean on Deceptive Financing
October 18, 2007

Prime Minister Stephen Harper must stop playing politics and come clean on his alleged involvement in deceptive financing practices during the 2006 parliamentary election, the Liberal opposition demanded today.

“Elections Canada has said the Conservatives violated election financing rules to the tune of $1.2 million dollars,” said Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion. “The Prime Minister's closest advisors are implicated. How can he say to Canadians that he was not aware of this unethical and illegal behaviour?

“I’m asking Mr. Harper, both as the leader of the Conservative Party and as Prime Minister, to tell us what he knew and when he knew it. Did the Prime Minister violate election laws?”

Despite several opportunities to absolve himself of any implication in the scandal, Mr. Harper refused to answer the opposition’s questions, choosing instead to hide behind Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan.

The Conservative Party is currently being investigated by Elections Canada for allegedly breaking campaign spending laws during the 2006 general election by funneling national advertising costs to regional candidates, who were then able to apply for taxpayer-funded rebates.

Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff pointed out that Prime Minister Harper and his team are increasingly betraying the public’s trust.

“The government’s conduct has been called into question by independent organizations. It is under investigation not in one, not in two, but in three separate cases,” said Mr. Ignatieff. “Clearly the Conservatives want to sweep all of this under the rug so Canadians do not get the facts.”

For a party that boasts accountability, the Conservatives’ own practices seem nothing short of hypocritical. The Liberal opposition believes it is time for Mr. Harper and his party to start telling the truth. Canadians deserve an honest and accountable government. (Source: http://www.liberal.ca/story_13221_e.aspx)

Stéphane Dion - Tough enough to be prime minister

Conservatives best wake up
Lorrie Goldstein, Sunday, August 5, 2007 - Toronto Sun

Two books suggest why Stephane Dion could be a serious threat in the next election

The more I learn about Stephane Dion, the more I think it would be dumb of the Conservatives to underestimate him.

I know, according to the punditocracy, the federal Liberal leader is a dud-man-walking.

But they also told us Stephen Harper was a dud and Paul Martin was dynamite.

Oops.

Two books suggest why Dion could be a serious threat in the next election.

The easier read is Linda Diebel's Stephane Dion, Against the Current, published earlier this year.

The tougher but more eye-opening one is 1999's Straight Talk -- a collection of Dion's speeches and writings when he was Canada's unity minister, following the near-disaster of the 1995 Quebec referendum.

Reading these pieces, you quickly discover that Dion is, like Harper, scary smart.[1]

His speeches, letters and essays -- most given when he first entered Jean Chretien's cabinet on the advice of Chretien's wife, Aline -- literally demolish the separatists' arguments.

No wonder they hate him. He's smarter than they are.

Dion takes apart every myth they've ever propagated -- that Canada will have no choice but to accept a unilateral declaration of Quebec's independence following a referendum victory, that Quebec's borders are indivisible, that the international community will rush to recognize a self-proclaimed Quebec nation.

SEPARATISTS

Citing legal, constitutional and historical precedents, Dion almost mocks the separatists at times, challenging them to produce one argument that isn't naive, wrong or self-defeating.

Which brings us to Dion's role in the Clarity Act, fathered by Chretien, Dion, Harper and Preston Manning -- talk about strange bedfellows -- and in putting specific questions to the Supreme Court about Quebec's right to secede. Dion won a ruling from the top court that Canada cannot be compelled to negotiate separation unless Quebecers give a clear answer (well over 50%) to a clear referendum question, a much higher bar than the separatists have ever faced.

Of course it's not all brilliant. Dion proves even a smart political science professor can sometimes be brain-dead.[2]

In a 1998 speech at Queen's University, for example, Dion observes: "It's all very well for the federal government to negotiate wonderful international agreements on the environment, but they'll get absolutely nowhere without the provinces' co-operation."

Exactly! So perhaps Dion could explain when, exactly, his party is going to figure that out with regard to the Kyoto accord and Alberta?[3]

Similarly, in an 1997 letter to Bernard Landry, Dion chastises the Parti Quebecois for "your government's regrettable attitude of seeking to discredit your critics so as to avoid a debate of substance" on separation.

Right. And how would that be different from Dion's approach to debating global warming?[4]

The most revealing anecdote, however, is in Diebel's book -- an interview with
Stephane Dion's mother, Denyse, recalling the 1997 death of Stephane's father, Leon, a decade later.

Leon Dion, a respected political scientist in Quebec, died in a horrible drowning
accident at home.

Recalling the tragedy, Denyse Dion describes with contempt articles in the media and separatist talk hinting her husband's death was the result of his shame and disappointment over his son becoming the chief Liberal federalist spokesman in Quebec. "There were people who said he drowned himself because his son went into politics," Denyse angrily notes, calling them "idiots."

MOST HATED MAN

Think about that. At that time Stephane Dion -- who had followed his father's footsteps into academia -- was a political neophyte, whom the separatists were calling the most hated man in Quebec.

He was being depicted as a rat. Then his father, whom he clearly loved, dies in a terrible accident and his critics imply his father committed suicide because of him?

Never mind that Leon Dion wasn't a separatist and was proud of his son. What a cheap shot.

Even a strong person might understandably have said, "who needs this?" and retreated from politics.

Dion stayed. And fought.

To any Conservative (or Liberal) who thinks this guy isn't tough enough to be prime minister, maybe you'd better think again.

A couple of notes re: Goldstein:

1. Now, maybe it's just me, but I don't find "smart" to be scary in a leader. I find "stupid" a lot scarier. When I think of the country facing a serious disaster like a pandemic or climate change, I want smart people in charge. Smart people who actually care about the country (this country - Canada), that is, not smart people who only care about US oil companies.

2. Goldstein has admitted that Dion is smart and that he, Goldstein, finds smart to be scary. So why can't he figure out that Dion isn't "brain-dead" - he's just a whole lot smarter than Goldstein?

3. With 10 years experience working with the Alberta government as Intergovernmental Affairs Minister and another year-and-a-bit as Environment Minister, I'd say Dion probably knows more about the possibility of getting Alberta's co-operation on the Kyoto Protocol than Goldstein.



4. And - having watched a few hours of the 2005 Montreal UNFCCC conference - I've never seen any evidence that Dion is afraid of a substantive discussion on climate change or anything else.

Nice to see a conservative commentator finally catching on that Dion is anything but a wimp though.

Climate change - more than a slogan

Canadians have a very clear choice in front of them. We have a Liberal leader who is considered an international hero by environmentalists in the forefront of the fight against climate change. And we have a Conservative - I hesitate to use the word "leader" - who has opposed action on climate change for years and is still, in fact, doing that.

From Embassy, December 14, 2005

Dion Hailed Saviour of Kyoto Protocol
Canada's Environment Minister is being hailed an international "hero" who withstood fierce resistance to find agreement to extend mandatory pollution limits on most of the world's worst offenders.

Environmentalists are praising Stéphane Dion, chair of the UN Climate Change Conference, and his advisors for clinching a deal that will commit 35 industrialized nations to deeper greenhouse gas emission reductions when the Kyoto Protocol targets elapse in 2012. The United States and Australia are the only major emitters that refused to sign the pact.

"Stéphane Dion should go down as a world hero for making this happen," says John Bennett, a senior policy advisor for the Sierra Club of Canada. "All credit goes to him and his negotiators."

The deal is the crowning achievement of the two-week international summit in Montreal that finished in the early hours of Dec. 10.


A second big win is the adoption of a rulebook that makes the Kyoto Protocol fully operational, including a compliance mechanism that was being bogged down by Saudi Arabia. It is believed the oil-producing nation was attempting to show dissatisfaction with a global shift to alternative energies. Another positive outcome is a move to strengthen the Clean Development Mechanism, which brings developing countries into the carbon-trading market.

Compare to Harper's work on climate change.
From Global Warming update — Harper at G8 (June 4, 2007)

Harper appears to be sticking to his position on "intensity-based targets," which may mean a slowing in the rate of greenhouse gas emissions but does not mean less of them in real terms any time soon. The world would have more greenhouse gas emissions in years to come rather than less of them under this proposal. The Europeans want hard targets for actual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Harper, however, has promised intensity-based targets to the oil industry, and his government has promised tar sands developers exemptions from even these.

Environmentalists are also concerned the Harper government plans to use 2006 as the base year for calculating future reductions. The Europeans are calling for using 1990 as the base year, since 1990 was the base year for Kyoto. "Mr. Baird's plan makes the Canadian targets less strict," wrote Andrew Mayeda in The Ottawa Citizen on Saturday, June 2. "The Canadian plan also uses 'intensity targets' which do not guarantee that overall emissions will fall."

Harper and the Conservatives have long opposed action on climate change and denied its necessity. Like the Bush Republicans, the Harper Conservatives are heavily backed by the oil industry and have always opposed environmental restrictions that reduce industry profitability. Over the years, they have used a number of front groups and public relations firms to argue their case. With the Conservatives running a minority government, they are using the advantages of public office to make a case they have advanced for years in opposition...

Stephen Harper expressed his feelings about the Kyoto accord in a 2002 letter apparently written when Harper was leader of the defunct Canadian Alliance party. In the letter, he called Kyoto a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries. "We're gearing up now for the biggest struggle our party has faced since you entrusted me with the leadership," Harper's letter says. "I'm talking about the 'battle of Kyoto' — our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord." [my emphasis]

If Canadians are truly concerned about the future of planet Earth, the next federal election will give us the power to be part of the solution instead of the problem.

The challenge of course is that the majority of us - the people who do care - are split four ways between supporting the Liberals, the Greens, the NDP and the Bloc. While those who don't care - or who can kid themselves into thinking Harper is actually doing something - all vote Conservative.


We really need to start working on this split. The "gesture of cooperation" between Dion and Elizabeth May was a good start:

The planet has reached its limit. The human-caused damage to our natural environment is devastating. Currently, our two parties agree that urgent action is needed. So, too, do the vast majority of Canadians. Yet our electoral system could return to government the only political party that does not believe action is required urgently....

We admit we are different from most adversarial, political leaders. We respect each other. We will always put the country and the planet first.

Is it too much to hope that Jack Layton will start taking Elizabeth May's phone calls?

Voitures de fonction : Dion le plus écologique

"De tous les chefs fédéraux, le chef du Parti libéral, Stéphane Dion, est le seul qui prêche véritablement par l'exemple."

La Presse investigation finds Dion is the only leader who truly practises what he preaches when it comes to official cars. His Prius produces less than half the emissions of Harper, Layton and Duceppe's cars....

Voitures de fonction: Dion le plus écologique

Alors qu’ils se posent en grands défenseurs de l’environnement, le chef du Bloc québécois, Gilles Duceppe, et celui du NPD, Jack Layton, utilisent des voitures de fonction qui émettent plus de gaz à effet de serre que la moyenne des véhicules canadiens, révèle une enquête de La Presse.

De tous les chefs fédéraux, le chef du Parti libéral, Stéphane Dion, est le seul qui prêche véritablement par l’exemple. L’ancien ministre de l’Environnement dans le gouvernement de Paul Martin utilise en effet une Toyota Prius dans ses déplacements officiels. Le premier ministre Stephen Harper se situe à l’autre extrémité du palmarès, avec sa gourmande et polluante Cadillac DeVille 2005.

Mais le plus surprenant vient de MM. Duceppe et Layton, qui s’apprêtent tous deux à voter contre le discours du Trône si le gouvernement conservateur ne promet pas de respecter les objectifs de réduction de gaz à effet de serre fixés par le protocole de Kyoto.

Ils roulent en Chevrolet Impala 2006 et 2007 respectivement. Or, les deux modèles dépassent de 25 % les émissions moyennes des voitures québécoises, et de 6 % celles des voitures canadiennes, selon des statistiques fournies par l’Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique (AQLPA).

Les actions des deux leaders sont loin de coïncider avec leurs prises de position, dénonce le directeur général de l’organisme, Mathieu Castonguay, lui-même ingénieur spécialisé en mécanique.

«Ils ne sont même pas capables de choisir un véhicule meilleur que ce que les Canadiens ont choisi», a-t-il lancé lors d’un entretien téléphonique avec La Presse.

Deux fois plus que Dion

Selon le guide canadien de consommation de carburant, les Impala de Gilles Duceppe et de Jack Layton émettent environ 4500 kg de CO2 par an. C’est presque autant que des voitures sport ou de performance comme la Ford Mustang, la Dodge Charger ou la plupart des modèles Porsche. La moyenne québécoise est de 3619 kg par véhicule tandis que la moyenne canadienne est de 4244 kg.

Avec sa Toyota Prius, Stéphane Dion émet environ 1968 kg par an, moins de la moitié des émissions de ses deux collègues de l’opposition.

Stephen Harper arrive en queue de peloton avec sa Cadillac, qui, selon le guide 2005 émet 5282 kg. Mais dans son cas, la voiture et le moteur ont été modifiés pour des raisons de sécurité et de performance. La GRC, qui gère le parc automobile du premier ministre et de sa suite, n’a cependant pas voulu donner de détails sur la nature de ces changements. Ni sur les émissions de GES qui s’ensuivent ...

Les positions avant le volant

Écoénergétiques ou non, la rectitude environnementale d’un chef de parti se mesure bien davantage à ses prises de position qu’à la marque de son véhicule de fonction, tranche pour sa part Clare Demerse, de l’Institut Pembina.

«Quand on voit le premier ministre qui roule dans une voiture qui n’est pas très efficace… C’est inquiétant, c’est vrai, mais la chose qui nous inquiète le plus, c’est l’échec de l’implantation de mesures assez solides pour combattre les changements climatiques.»

Stéphane vs Stephen

I've been reading Dion's Le pari de la franchise and I've been struck by the enormous contrast between Dion - a person who obviously admires and cares very deeply about this country - and Harper - a person who has made no secret of his contempt for Canada.

On national unity, here's Harper's famous firewall comment (in a letter to the National Post):

It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction.

And who can forget this gem?

Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status...

By contrast, here's Dion in the introduction to Le pari de la franchise:

La première des convictions que j'expose dans ce livre est que notre pays, le Canada, est d'abord et avant tout, un principe d'entraide, l'un des meilleurs que l'esprit humain ait inventés....

Ce qui constitue la principale force et la vraie grandeur du Canada est sa capacité de rassembler des populations différentes autour d'objectifs communs. Cet alliage de l'unité et de la diversité ne saurait se maintenir sans le fédéralisme que nous avons inventé. [pp. xv-xvi]

Roughly translated, "Canada is above all a principle of mutual assistance, one of the best that the human mind has ever invented... The greatest strength of Canada is its capacity to bring together different populations around common goals. This alliance of unity and diversity wouldn't be possible without the federalism that we have invented."

From the English edition, Straight Talk, here's Dion on 'Why is being Canadian so valuable?'

No, the reason I consider myself so fortunate to be Canadian is not because of what is distinctive and particular to this country, but because of our achievement of universal ideals. Canada is the greatest example of what the world must become in terms of tolerance, openness, and capacity for harmony between different communities. [p. 132]

En français:

Non, si je me sens aussi chanceux d'être Canadien, ce n'est pas à cause de ce qui distingue et caractérise notre pays, mais plutôt parce que nous réalisons des idéaux humains universels. Le Canada est le meilleur example de ce à quoi on doit aspirer dans le monde entier sur les plans de la tolérance, de l'ouverture et de l'harmonie entre diverses communautés. [p. 142]

He closed a speech to the Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal, March 18, 1998, with this:

The Canadian ideal is that of a country where human beings have the best chance to be considered as human beings....

We must keep Canada united and make it even better, for ourselves, for our children, for future generations of Canadians, but also for all those human beings throughout the world who love our country as a paradigm of what the world can become. [Source: "150 years of Canadian democracy." Canadian Speeches 12.2 (May 1998): 13-18. ]

A much more generous vision of Canada.

Don't make plans for February!

Let’s see there’s the report from the Afghanistan Study Group (kinda like Bush’s Iraq Study Group). The best information on Afghanistan is available from Arthur Kent, an internationally renowned journalist whose been writing stories and making documentaries there for 30 years and I hope the ASG will interview him. Arthur Kent, Sky Reporter

Then there’s the mystery about the tenure of our Chief of Defence Staff, Rick Hillier which might end in February. My guess is there’s only room for one cowboy on Parliament Hill.

Oh yeah, then Harper is required to report to report to Parliament on the implementation of the Gomery Commission recommendations by February 2008. The Federal Accountability Act falls so far short, it will be interesting to see progress on these recommendations.

Last but not least, Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General will be reporting in February 2008 on:

February 2008 Status Report of the Commissioner of the Environment


• Managing Selected Substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act


• Managing Selected Aspects of Pesticides


• Managing Selected Aspects of Federal Contaminated Sites


• Federal Protected Areas


• Species at Risk


• Aquatic Invasive Species


• Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes


• International Environment Agreements


• Strategic Environmental Assessment


• Greening of Government Operations

Given this government’s cavalier attitude toward the Environment, this report could be interesting reading. Harper reduced Canadian standards on pesticides in the SPP process so we can anticipate that zinger.

Other Things to Watch

Maybe the Privacy Commissioner will have reported on the CPC's misuse of personal information in its party database by February. Liberal Justice Critic Marlene Jennings filed a complaint today.

See the story here:
Liberal Justice Critic Marlene Jennings press release

or

Maybe Harper will be spending the coming months in court with Elections Canada. Harper decided to fight them in court after Elections Canada implicated 66 CPC candidate ridings for receiving over $1 million in funds from their national party for advertising in contravention of The Elections Act.

See the list of ridings involved in this $1 million scandal here:
CPC Election Elaborations

We're going to need that long weekend, Dalton McGuinty promises for February '08 for Ontario!

Byelections

Four more byelections are in the works. I believe a byelection occurs within 6 months of a notice of vacancy so I’ve put the date of vacancy in brackets and the date by which the byelection needs to occur.

Toronto Centre
(July 6) by January 6, 2008 formerly held by Honourable Bill Graham; Candidate Bob Rae

Willowdale
(July 17) by January 17, 2008 Liberal Jim Peterson retired; Candidate Martha Hall Findlay

Vancouver Quadra
(July 30) by January 30, 2008 Liberal Stephen Owen retired; Candidate Joyce Murray

Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River
(Sep 5) by March 2008 Liberal Gary Merasty, Canada's first First Nations MP resigned to pursue private opportunity after finally having his motion passed for a Canadian government apology to the Residential Schools Attendees. No candidate is yet selected.

A busy session of Parliament until it ends and then it gets really busy!

A few shreds of scientific evidence

A couple of weeks ago I saw a comment from some . . . less than well-informed person . . . that there is "not a shred of scientific evidence" to support the existence of climate change. This AP article outlines some evidence recently published in the journal Nature. Not only does climate change really exist (in case you were wondering), but it can't be explained by natural causes alone:

Global warming not just about heat
SETH BORENSTEIN
The Associated Press
October 10, 2007 at 1:07 PM EDT

WASHINGTON — The world is not just getting hotter from man-made global warming, it is getting stickier. It really is the humidity.

The amount of moisture in the air near the surface – the stuff that makes hot weather unbearable – has increased 2.2 per cent in just under three decades. And computer models show that the only explanation is man-made global warming, according to a study published in Thursday's journal Nature.

“This humidity change is an important contribution to heat stress in humans as a result of global warming,” said Nathan Gillett of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, a co-author of the study.

Mr. Gillett studied changes in specific humidity, which is a measurement of total moisture in the air, between 1973-2002. Increases in humidity can be dangerous to people because it makes the body less efficient at cooling itself, said University of Miami health and climate researcher Laurence Kalkstein. He was not connected with the research.

Humidity increased over most of the globe, including the eastern United States, study co-author Katharine Willett, a climate researcher at Yale University, said. In a few regions, however, including the U.S. West, South Africa and parts of Australia, the air has grown drier.

The finding is not surprising to climate scientists. Physics dictates that warmer air can hold more moisture. But Mr. Gillett's study shows that the increase in humidity is already significant and can be attributed to gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

To show that the effect is man-made, Mr. Gillett ran computer models to simulate past climate conditions and studied what would happen to humidity if there were no man-made greenhouse gases. It did not match reality.

He looked at what would happen from just man-made greenhouse gases. That did not match either. Then he looked at the combination of natural conditions and greenhouse gases. The results were nearly identical to the year-by-year increases in humidity.

Mr. Gillett's study followed another last month that used the same technique to show that moisture above the world's oceans increased and that it bore the “fingerprint” of being caused by man-made global warming.

Climate scientists have now seen the man-made fingerprint of global warming on 10 different aspects of Earth's environment: surface temperatures, humidity, water vapour over the oceans, barometric pressure, total precipitation, wildfires, change in species of plants in animals, water run-off, temperatures in the upper atmosphere, and heat content in the world's oceans.

“This story does now fit together; there are now no loose ends,” said Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Lab and author of the September study on moisture above the oceans. “The message is pretty compelling that natural causes alone just can't cut it.”

The studies make sense, said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who also was not part of either team's research.

It will only feel worse in the future, Mr. Gillett said. Moisture in the air increases by about 6 per cent with every degree Celsius, he said. Using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's projections for temperature increases, that would mean a 12-to-24-per-cent increase in humidity by the year 2100.

“Although it might not be a lethal kind of thing, it's going to increase human discomfort,” Willett said.

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071010.whumidity1010/BNStory/Science/home

Talking green in both official languages

La pollution parle pas français, parle pas anglais

Denis Paradis and Stéphane Dion discuss environmental and language issues in this interview at the Brome Fair, August 2007:




In the French-language interview Dion briefly discusses issues such as the need for secondary and tertiary treatment of waste water, invasive species in waterways, species-at-risk and "intelligent" reforestation. The English-language interview discusses the next phase of Kyoto and international climate change agreements.

Nice opening footage of some Aberdeen Angus cattle for us country types ;-)

Restoring the brand

Last wek Deb and Chris and I were discussing "What have you done today to get Stephane Dion elected as Prime Minister tomorrow" on the "A United Party, A United Canada - Stephane Dion" facebook group.

Chris mentioned the challenge of getting young voters to vote, and the topic also came up in Stéphane Dion's latest Facebook Q&A video.

I work in a college marketing department where we're competing for the attention of young people (from 15 or so on up) with other colleges and universities. About a year ago we launched our "We Do That [TM]" campaign, featuring, among lots of other things, this webmercial which ran both on TV and on our website (front page at the time):

Chris (a university student) liked the webmercial and commented:

I think we should have them focus solely on certain issues. Like have one on the Liberal environmental plan, and another on the economic policy etc.. That way we can make short, effective and above all else POSITIVE, videos.

Deb liked the webmercial but wasn't sure about whether they would "encourage people to choose Stephane Dion."

Good question... My thinking about the webmercial is that it's a way of getting the attention of young people. Catch their interest, and introduce them to the party thru a series of short vids, targeted at a couple of issues, as Chris suggests. A lot of young people care passionately about the environment, so that would be a good place to begin.

The first ad would start with the message - "You care about the environment. YOU have the power to make a difference. " Then add more substance in subsequent ads. A mysterious, keep-them-asking-for-more approach, so they WANT to see the ads.

A campaign targeted at 18-24 year-olds would have a lot of positive spill-over impact on older voters as well.

Oh yeah, and our "We Do That [TM]" campaign has won zillions of awards.

A "Phishing" Expedition?

Stephen Harper's announcement in Winnipeg yesterday will bring a failed "Made in the USA" policy to our justice system. Harper's War on Drugs has been predicted as a failure even by leading conservatives in the US. Their article "The War on Drugs is Lost" is a fascinating compilation explaining why.

It is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far.

"The prosecution of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens every year is both hypocritical and an affront to individual, civil and human rights." (Raymond Kendall, Secretary General of Interpol).

So why would Harper proceed with a plan that has failed elsewhere. Why would he want to spend more money on a failed plan?

From the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy reports:

"Much of the cost of illicit drugs in Canada is attributable to policing and the criminal justice system. Yet studies have repeatedly shown that prevention and treatment are far more cost-effective than are approaches which depend on the criminal law. Methadone and other forms of treatment can cut down on the amount spent on illegal drugs, and so can reduce crimes committed to obtain drugs.

Treatment can also reduce other criminal behaviour through reducing alcohol and drug use.The result is a saving not only in terms of economic loss due to theft but also in terms of legal and prison costs. Drug treatment is a more cost-effective method than confinement for reducing drug use and crime: about two-thirds of the benefit for one-tenth of the annual cost. Such reduction in criminal behaviour, however, occurs only as long as the user stays in treatment and only as long as treatment is effective. Effectiveness of treatment and whether the user stays in treatment or not depend on the type of treatment they receive. Flexible treatment programs, where multiple options exist for each person, appear to be the most effective in keeping users away from illegal drugs and the most successful at retaining clients.

A recent study by bipartisan public health researchers in the United States found that medical treatment for drug dependence works as well as treatment for diabetes and other chronic diseases, dramatically reduces crime and is much cheaper than jail. The report concluded that: every dollar invested in drug treatment can save $7 in societal and medical costs. These findings confirm those of previous studies of comparative approaches to drug dependence."

So again, the question, WHY spend tax dollars on enforcement?

Why, then, does prohibition persist and alternatives remain such an anathema to law enforcement and many politicians? Gil Puder, an outspoken member of the Vancouver police force puts it bluntly: "The reality is that policing’s make-work project called drug prohibition has been so successful that society can no longer afford to pay for the crime wave we’ve created..." Regarding the relationship between prohibition, weapons, and the industry of law enforcement, Puder writes that the "violence of prohibition is simply good for business."

There it is: FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Puder concludes that: "There are simply too many people who have formed their value system around an idea, an idea that has back fired to magnify social misery and run roughshod over our justice system. Critical thinkers might ask why prohibition advocates are content to blame others for the disaster left in the drug war’s wake. There’s a simple reason for this, going far deeper than the overt examples of personal gain and empire building. The defining characteristic of the drug war is that it enable people to form a self-concept, based not on the quality of their character, but through disparaging the morality of others."

Ah-ha, there we have it again! FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Could Harper be buying off the social conservatives with a little bit of self-righteous and morally superior legislation? A piece of legislation that will cause progressive thinkers to wail in protest. Why would he do that, you might ask? Divide and conquer is a tried and true practise for conservatives.

And well, elections are expensive. If the social conservative base of the Conservative Party of Canada get a little of what they want, maybe they'll pay for his election. Just enough so his "fish or cut bait" threat looks more like a phishing expedition for donors.

Elgin/London West provincial all-candidates meeting

Went to an all-candidates-&-referendum-info meeting for Elgin-Middlesex-London and London West this evening, sponsored by "Women - Our Votes Count," among others.

The sitting MPPs for the two ridings are Steve Peters (Elgin - Labour Minister, formerly Agriculture Minister) and Chris Bentley (London West - Training, Colleges & University Minister, formerly Labour Minister).

Candidates from the PCs, NDP, Greens and Freedom Party were also there, as well as someone from the referendum education body who gave a 5-minute summary (which I'm not going to repeat here; you can get it all at yourbigdecision.ca).

Overall impressions of the candidates . . . I can't pretend to be objective or unbiased, but boy, I really don't like those PCs. The provincial ones are just as prone to revisionist history, fairy-tales and self-righteous finger-pointing as their federal cousins.

Allison Graham, for instance (PC candidate in London West) - decries poverty and homelessness and talks about her experience working with the Salvation Army. Yet it was a PC government under Mike Harris that cancelled affordable housing projects (the minute they got into office as I recall) and slashed welfare payments, putting thousands of people out on the streets because they could no longer afford housing. Ms. Graham didn't mention that part.

Ms. Graham's solution for poverty and homelessness? Entrepreneurism.

Both Ms. Graham and Bill Fehr (PC candidate in Elgin-Middlesex-London) talked a lot about clean air and water. So, ah, anybody remember what government it was that privatized water testing and degraded environmental lab services to an extent that the Walkerton scandal could happen? Oh right, it was the Mike Harris Progressive Conservative government.

Neither Conservative candidate acknowledged their party's responsibility for the messes that they're now blaming the Liberals for - in health, education, housing, poverty, the environment, downloading to municipalities. I don't think too many people in the audience were fooled though - our memories aren't that short.

It certainly doesn't say much for the PCs' devotion to principles of accountability and transparency.

OK, so I've vented about the PCs, I'll move onto the environment.

As my neighbour mentioned to me, we really wish that the provincial Liberals would borrow some of the NDP's and Green's environment policies, e.g. no more new nuclear plants, more renewables, more conservation etc. Or to put it differently, maybe the provincial Liberals could borrow some of the federal Liberals' environment policies! Dion's policies seem to me to be much more environmentally-friendly than the provincial Liberals.

Gary Brown, the London West Green candidate introduced an interesting idea. Not sure of the exact numbers but something like this - They would take the ???$40 billion??? earmarked for new nuclear power and give it to homeowners ($12,000 each) for renewable energy projects to take their homes right off the grid. I'm sure there are lots of bugs - e.g. getting enough solar panels etc. and trained technicians to actually implement this - but I like the direction. And it's great to get some innovative ideas out there for discussion. [Anybody who actually knows anything about this - feel free to set me straight on the details.]

Although I've converted to big-L Liberalism federally, I'm still partial to the provincial NDP and I was impressed with the Green candidate. But after listening to the PCs, I'm more determined than ever not to do anything that would help them win, so I'm leaning toward a strategic vote.

And I'm planning to vote in favour of MMP, hoping to see some Greens in the legislature eventually because they have a lot to offer.

PS - being the media

From The Hill Times - "Gotcha on YouTube, buddy!"

For Ontario's Greens, the 2007 election campaign is not about "getting" media, it's "being" the media, according to campaign co-chair Jim Harris, former federal Green Party leader and past Ontario Green Party president.

"We are creating our own unique content, which goes out virally through our members, supporters, candidates and people who are interested in our party," he said about the Ontario Greens' GPO.ca site that supports blogging and a "Green TV" video section.

While Mr. Harris claimed his party was the only one in Ontario's electoral race leading a Web 2.0 campaign, the Greens do have an advantage over their 2.0 rivals, the PCs–notwithstanding their provincial leader's communications background as CEO of both Rogers Media and later Rogers Cable.

Ms. Dymond told The Hill Times that she and other Tory campaign workers read Joe Trippi's book, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, which explains how, as campaign manager, he used the internet in Howard Dean's 2004 U.S. presidential bid.

"We didn't just read his book–we had him up three times," said Mr. Harris.

Mr. Trippi's message: "You just don't put content on the web and leave it there forever. It's a dynamic interactive medium itself and when you enable the user to create content, it becomes something different."

Added Mr. Harris: "In the old-line parties, it was a couple of pollsters–some backroom boys–who decided what to do. But when you run a Trippi-like campaign, it's the party members–it's supporters who actually direct the campaign."

It also means the "old-line media" are less relevant too, he said, pointing to a recent Harris/Decima poll showing support for the Greens as high as 12 per cent (and just two percentage points below the NDP).

"Thirty-five per cent of all voters are considering voting Green, so how long can you afford to dis a third of your readership or viewership or listenership? It's at your own peril," said Mr. Harris.

There's lots of opportunity for party-members to get our message out.

Some much-needed UNITY!

Deb Prothero, a lifelong southern Ontario Liberal, created a new Facebook group - A United Party, A United Canada - as a birthday present for monsieur Unity himself, Stéphane Dion.

Read Deb's post "What have you done today to get Stéphane Dion elected as Prime Minister tomorrow?" and be inspired to do something positive.

I'm sick of all the negative stuff and the news items unashamedly based on groundless speculation. Deb's group and post are great reminders that we all have the power and ability to put out a positive message.

Write letters to the editor. Request corrections when news outlets make mistakes. Comment on online news items. Blog. Talk to your friends. Hell, talk to your enemies!

Canada is too important to be left in the hands of people who just want the power, the glory and the gratitude of their external masters. We have a leader who cares about the country, the people - including the most vulnerable among us, and our beautiful planet. He has the knowledge, skills, contacts and heart to run this country well for the benefit of all Canadians, now and in the future.

And he has the most beautiful accent on the planet.